Census Answers to Race

[MikeMangum]

You said that answering the race question is "play[ing] along with the racial divisiveness." I would still like to know if you consider this racial divisiveness to be intentional on the part of the government or unintentional.

Does it matter if it is intentional?

 

[MikeMangum]

The reason it is relevant today is that there still is some virulent racism in the U.S. By noting the racial demographics of local populations, the government can get a better handle on businesses that discriminate in their hiring practices.

Yes, if you believe that you can discover racism by looking at the proportionality of employment at a firm and finding racism if that proportion isn't representative. I happen to believe that the logic behind that theory is utter bunk.

The crab fishing fleet up in Alaska, trash collection companies, construction companies, mining companies, oil drilling companies, and landscaping companies etc. simply must engage in discrimination against women because female employment in those industries doesn't even come close to representative proportionality. It can't possibly have anything to do with men being far more willing to work in dirty, dangerous, or uncomfortable jobs than women.

Public elementary schools must discriminate against men because they make up a tiny fraction of teachers compared to their proportion of the population.

I guess the NBA discriminates against whites, asians, and hispanics because the employment of those groups is less than their proportionality in society. Yes, the NBA discriminates: it discriminates based on talent, not race.

The way to find discrimination is to find actual cases of discrimination. You do not need to know what proportion of the population is made up by some subgroup to do so.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I don't know if that's entirely true. There are also speech cues that can be heard. I'm not claiming that you can always tell, but often simply hearing the sound of a voice can suggest the race of the speaker. (See here)

You are ignoring the fact that the people conducting the study decided what "race" was ("black" and "white") without any real explanation as to how that decision was made. They then found that some people were able to use voice cues in order to guess with moderate accuracy what the scientists decided were races based on skin color.

This is not evidence of race. It is evidence, however, that people of a certain skin color have a similar speech patterns, which can probably be explained by them, I dunno, living near each other.

You could call the first child bi-racial and the others multi-racial or mixed-race.

I could. Or I could argue that this type of "dilution" has been going on for eons, and there are no "real" races in the first place. I stipulated to there being a "pure" Caucasoid, but without a firm definition, how can I even know one exists? How do you differentiate a pure Caucasoid from a mixed race version?

How about distinct breeds of dogs? Do you accept that a poodle is a real category (whether scientific or socially constructed) distinct from a labrador? And yet they can mate and produce an offspring called a labradoodle. And the labradoodle can mate with some other breed of dog and produce something else.

You need to do some research on dog breeds and certification. Just take a look at the definition for a Labrador Retriever. The AKC, one of many groups certifying breeds, look very closely at ancestry and even exclude dogs with the "right" ancestry that don't exhibit the right genetic characteristics.

The fact that it can be done doesn't mean that it *is* done when it comes to humans.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I guess the NBA discriminates against whites, asians, and hispanics because the employment of those groups is less than their proportionality in society. Yes, the NBA discriminates: it discriminates based on talent, not race.

Brief derail: I remember an old David Letterman clip where Michael Jordan (I think) was talking about how his new shoe line was not permitted by the NBA at the time. Why? Because there was no white on it.

David replied, "Sorta like the NBA, huh?"

 

[Uncayimmy]

For those not in the USA or who didn't actually read the Census form or the American Community Survey, here's what they ask:

Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin
* No, not of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin
* Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
* Yes, Puerto Rican
* Yes, Cuban
* Yes, Another Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin - Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.


What is Person's Race?
* White
* Black, African Am, or Negro
* American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe

* Asian Indian
* Chinese
* Filipino
* Japanese
* Korean
* Vietnamese
* Native Hawaiian
* Guamanian or Chamorro
* Somoan
* Other Pacific Islander - Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan and so on.
* Other Asian - Print race, for example, HMong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.
* Some other race - Print race.

 

[Ladewig]

Does it matter if it is intentional?

I think there is a huge difference between the government intentionally doing it and unintentionally doing it. Are you saying you look at that difference as irrelevant?

 

[Ladewig]

Yes, if you believe that you can discover racism by looking at the proportionality of employment at a firm and finding racism if that proportion isn't representative. I happen to believe that the logic behind that theory is utter bunk.

The crab fishing fleet up in Alaska, trash collection companies, construction companies, mining companies, oil drilling companies, and landscaping companies etc. simply must engage in discrimination against women because female employment in those industries doesn't even come close to representative proportionality. It can't possibly have anything to do with men being far more willing to work in dirty, dangerous, or uncomfortable jobs than women.

Public elementary schools must discriminate against men because they make up a tiny fraction of teachers compared to their proportion of the population.

I guess the NBA discriminates against whites, asians, and hispanics because the employment of those groups is less than their proportionality in society. Yes, the NBA discriminates: it discriminates based on talent, not race.

The way to find discrimination is to find actual cases of discrimination. You do not need to know what proportion of the population is made up by some subgroup to do so.

What if we are talking about a job that is not more dirty, is not more dangerous, is not more uncomfortable, does not depend on a degree and certification, and does not depend on talent. What if we are talking about something as simple as working in a chain of fast food restaurants? If an employer does not hire a specific black person and then in the ensuing investigation the EEOC observes that this employer has 500 employees and all of them are white. Are you saying the EEOC should not consider if the place of employment is in a city that is 90% white or or a city that is 90% black?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you think you could possibly come up with a more realistic example ?

 

[slingblade]

I can, I think.

In one of my college courses, we learned that while the American population (at that time, 2005) was 12% black, in the prison systems, the population was 73% black. This seems disproportionate, and indicates possible racial profiling. In other words, it appears from the data that black people get arrested more often than whites and other races. It does not necessarily mean that blacks are committing more crime than whites (or other races).

In fact, just think about the numbers alone: in 2008, whites made up 75% of the population, with blacks making up some 12% as I mentioned, and other races making up the balance. How does 12% of the population get convicted of 73% of the crime, anyway? I mean, damn, they're a busy bunch, aren't they? Or is it possible to extrapolate that something not quite right is going on there and needs to be closely examined and corrected?

We need those aggregate numbers on race to do a lot of things that ostensibly should be making life a little better for certain groups. Without those numbers, we can't even see there's a problem.

That is only one of probably thousands of beneficial uses for this data.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's pretty naive to suggest those problems go un-addressed without census data ..

The challenge was to show an example of how the ' race ' question on census forms helps alleviate
discrimination based on skin color ..

 

[Uncayimmy]

I guess that's why they ask about gender as well. Apparently men are locked up at 10X the rate of women. At least we can pretty accurately identify women versus men and only have a small percentage of mixed gender.

Sounds to me like you're making a good argument for asking about skin color. I wonder why they don't ask about "Arabs" for lack of a better term. Apparently it was considered. They also lump "whites" together. I guess that's why we don't know if Gypsies are being discriminated against. How about Russian immigrants? Fortunately, we can separate out Japanese from Koreans and Cambodians.

 

[slingblade]

It's pretty naive to suggest those problems go un-addressed without census data ..

The challenge was to show an example of how the ' race ' question on census forms helps alleviate
discrimination based on skin color ..

I did show how those numbers can be used. That you won't accept it isn't my burden.

 

[slingblade]

I guess that's why they ask about gender as well. Apparently men are locked up at 10X the rate of women. At least we can pretty accurately identify women versus men and only have a small percentage of mixed gender.

Except we're talking about race data, not gender. But you know how to start new threads if that topic also interests you.

Sounds to me like you're making a good argument for asking about skin color.

I think I've shown one possible way such data can be used, but my example isn't meant to make the case for the entire argument. Please don't overburden my single example.

I wonder why they don't ask about "Arabs" for lack of a better term. Apparently it was considered. They also lump "whites" together. I guess that's why we don't know if Gypsies are being discriminated against. How about Russian immigrants? Fortunately, we can separate out Japanese from Koreans and Cambodians.

I can't answer those questions. Let me know if anyone else can.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...
I think I've shown one possible way such data can be used, but my example isn't meant to make the case for the entire argument. ...

Anything is possible, but I missed where your example made a case for anything useful..

We don't need the census in order to determine the black/white demographics of the US prison system ..

 

[Ladewig]

Do you think you could possibly come up with a more realistic example ?

Races in Mountain Brook,Alabama (21,000):
White Non-Hispanic (98.1%)
Hispanic (0.6%)


Races in Rowland Heights, California (50,000):
Chinese (29.0%)
Hispanic (28.3%)
White Non-Hispanic (16.3%)
Other race (12.8%)
Korean (7.7%)
Filipino (6.4%)
Two or more races (4.2%)
Other Asian (3.4%)
Black (2.6%)
Japanese (1.5%)
Asian Indian (1.3%)
Vietnamese (1.1%)
American Indian (1.1%)

An employer with 500 workers might be rare in towns this small, so let's make it 100 employees and every one is white. The racial percentage of the city cannot be the sole factor in evaluating the possibility of racial discrimination, but it can justifiably be a contributing factor.

 

[MikeMangum]

Races in Mountain Brook,Alabama (21,000):
White Non-Hispanic (98.1%)
Hispanic (0.6%)


Races in Rowland Heights, California (50,000):
Chinese (29.0%)
Hispanic (28.3%)
White Non-Hispanic (16.3%)
Other race (12.8%)
Korean (7.7%)
Filipino (6.4%)
Two or more races (4.2%)
Other Asian (3.4%)
Black (2.6%)
Japanese (1.5%)
Asian Indian (1.3%)
Vietnamese (1.1%)
American Indian (1.1%)

An employer with 500 workers might be rare in towns this small, so let's make it 100 employees and every one is white. The racial percentage of the city cannot be the sole factor in evaluating the possibility of racial discrimination, but it can justifiably be a contributing factor.

Go go quotas!

 

[Senex]

This thread is a poll asking what people filled out on the census forms. Some people, it would seem, don't like that I even asked the question, so it's become something else entirely. That's not my fault.

I'm working as an enumerator and must tolerate people who ask such questions. I'm just surprised to read those questions here.

 

[bpesta22]

Races in Mountain Brook,Alabama (21,000):
White Non-Hispanic (98.1%)
Hispanic (0.6%)


Races in Rowland Heights, California (50,000):
Chinese (29.0%)
Hispanic (28.3%)
White Non-Hispanic (16.3%)
Other race (12.8%)
Korean (7.7%)
Filipino (6.4%)
Two or more races (4.2%)
Other Asian (3.4%)
Black (2.6%)
Japanese (1.5%)
Asian Indian (1.3%)
Vietnamese (1.1%)
American Indian (1.1%)

An employer with 500 workers might be rare in towns this small, so let's make it 100 employees and every one is white. The racial percentage of the city cannot be the sole factor in evaluating the possibility of racial discrimination, but it can justifiably be a contributing factor.

The type of discrimination here is adverse impact. It's where a neutral selection practice harms a protected class. Harms is a statistical argument, though. One can look at applicant flow through the hiring process or compare the number of minorities hired to their number in the relevant labor market.

Question to all: Suppose one day that the genetic clusters that make one's skin appear white or black are identified. So, we can say something like: within some small margin of error, if you have this pattern, your skin color will appear white.

If that happens, what are your thoughts as to the correlation between self-reported race and the genetic pattern?

 

[Senex]

If that happens, what are your thoughts as to the correlation between self-reported race and the genetic pattern?

You miss the point. Self reported race is how you look at yourself. Genetics doesn't matter. Genetics no longer matter in the US and to think the census cares about genetics is to demonstrate your idiocy. Self reported statistics help decide secondary issues like English as a Second Language teachers in a particular system. Nothing diabolical.

Go back to watching FoxNews TV.

 

[bpesta22]

You miss the point. Self reported race is how you look at yourself. Genetics doesn't matter. Genetics no longer matter in the US and to think the census cares about genetics is to demonstrate your idiocy. Self reported statistics help decide secondary issues like English as a Second Language teachers in a particular system. Nothing diabolical.

Go back to watching FoxNews TV.

Why the hostility?

Can you explain why genetics no longer matter in the US?

p.s. I voted for the guy in my avatar.